To what extent have constitutional reforms since 1997 reduced the powers of the UK government

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

To what extent have constitutional reforms since 1997 reduced the powers of the UK government? 40 marks Plan * Go through all Blair constitutional reforms and evaluate how they have affected the powers of UK government * Go over devolution regarding all governments since 1997 * Go through all Brown constitutional reforms and evaluate how they have affected the powers of UK government * Go through all coalition constitutional reforms and evaluate how they have affected the powers of UK government To what extent have constitutional reforms since 1997 reduced the powers of the UK government? 40 marks Governments since 1997 have gone thorough huge amounts of constitutional reform, including devolution, the human rights act, powers to the European Union (EU) and many others. However there has been a fierce argument whether this has reduced the power of the UK government, this has also been a big issue with the public and at the 2010 election the conservative party won support by arguing that the New Labour government (1997-2010) gave to many powers away and they would fight to claim them back. ...read more.

Middle

This is seen by some as taking power away from the UK government and into the new committee. Some argue that it would be very hard for a government to pass a bill if it did not comply with the act. However some have argued that the act has not reduced the powers of the UK government at all. They argue that unlike in Germany and the US judges were not given the power to annul Westminster legislation that was found to breach the Human Rights act. Judges can only issue a 'declaration of incompatibility' which only means parliament have to consider the judges verdict, they can still easily override it, which takes no power away from the UK government. People also argue the Joint Committee on Human Rights have no real power as they are only an advisory body and do not have the power of the veto. Overall the Human Rights act, like devolution has not reduced the power of the UK government as they have overall power to abolish the act. This is one of the disputed benefits of an uncodified constitution. ...read more.

Conclusion

This was a problem because it meant the prime minister could abuse their power and call an election when they were most popular, for example Margret Thatcher called an election after the Falkland's war, and it could be argued this was because she was ahead in the polls. The fixed term parliaments take that power away from government. This is not the only constitutional reform that was introduced by the coalition that reduced government's power. They also introduced a new clause in a new EU act which meant every time the government wanted to pass over powers to the EU there must be a referendum. This of course limits government's power as it means they must ask the public's views before implementing a policy in these criteria. However people have argued that it does not reduce the power from the UK government as they can just remove the act in parliament. In conclusion the majority of constitutional reforms since 1997 have not reduced government power because of the UK's uncodified constitution which makes it easy for the next government to reverse any constitutional change that the last government made. Because this option is always there the power is never really lost only rolls and responsibilities are handed over to a separate organisation to carry out. ...read more.

Related AS and A Level United Kingdom essays

however, the human rights act , though vital, has not been given the political status it needs and the fact that european convention cant overrule Acts of parliament means the rights can still be trampled on by powerful governments .

Judges cannot be independent if they are not neutral and vice versa. Judicial neutrality means that judges should be neutral in their approach to the law, and in result to apply laws passed by Parliament in an impartial, unbiased and technical manner.

Secondly, the Human Rights Act aids judicial neutrality by allowing judges to use the powers of the state to defend individual rights. This shows that they are neutral as both political parties have attempted to reduce the Act's influence so that they can get more of what they want done

This can therefore, be argued as fundamentally altering the way in which the NHS operates as it will become more personalised and individualised for the few. This contradicts the idea of universal treatment as it won't fit the need of all patients.

asked by a Scottish MP in the '70s. Therefore it can be argued that as the only country in the UK without a regional assembly, Labour did not go far enough to reduced the deficit and should of created a English assembly. One claim as a reason for the devolution was that it would stop calls for independence

This allows the powers of government to be scrutinized in any British court, in some ways this is a step forward but in recent cases the Human Rights act has been abused and used to completely contradict its proposals. The recent case of Abu Hamza was a huge set back

Furthermore, constitutional reform of devolution (transferring central government to local or regional administration in 1997 can be established as one of the reforms that are gone far. Devolution gave constitution nations of the UK their own political voice. It refined representative democracy by allowing voters in Scotland, Welsh and Northern Ireland separately to express views about ?national? issues.

This system allows the individual to enjoy benefits offered by the state, and can motivate individuals to work harder with the promise of a good pension. A work permit is issued to Non-UK citizens allowing them the right to work within the UK for a specific period of time.